home - login - register

Journal Article Detail Page

written by Philip Eaton, Keith Johnson, Barrett Frank, and Shannon Willoughby
For proper assessment selection understanding the statistical similarities amongst assessments that measure the same, or very similar, topics is imperative. This study seeks to extend the comparative analysis between the brief electricity and magnetism assessment (BEMA) and the conceptual survey of electricity and magnetism (CSEM) presented by Pollock. This is accomplished by using large samples (N BEMA = 5368 and N CSEM = 9905) within classical test theory (CTT) and item response theory (IRT) frameworks. For the IRT comparison, after consideration of the conceptual content addressed in each assessment, it was assumed that each of these assessments are measuring the same student latent ability (?), specifically a student's ability to do introductory electricity and magnetism. Via a CTT and IRT analysis it was found that both assessments are essentially equal in overall difficulty. Classical item analysis applied to 7 questions used by both assessments revealed that each assessment functions slightly differently internally. The test information curves found from IRT show that the CSEM has superior information compared to the BEMA in estimating student latent abilities for the entire range of typical latent abilities achieved by students on each assessment, 0 ~ -2 to  0 ~ 3. Information in this case is interpreted as how well a student's latent ability was estimated by an assessment as a function of latent ability. When the circuits questions are removed from the BEMA the majority of the information is lost in the  0 ~ 0 to 0 ~ 2 range. This means the circuits questions on the BEMA are information heavy for higher ability scores. So, special considerations should be made as to which assessment a study uses depending on the specific questions a researcher is attempting to answer.
Physical Review Physics Education Research: Volume 15, Issue 1, Pages 010102
Subjects Levels Resource Types
Education - Basic Research
- Assessment
= Conceptual Assessment
= Instruments
- Student Characteristics
= Ability
= Skills
Electricity & Magnetism
- General
General Physics
- Physics Education Research
- Lower Undergraduate
- Reference Material
= Research study
PER-Central Type Intended Users Ratings
- PER Literature
- Researchers
- Administrators
  • Currently 0.0/5

Want to rate this material?
Login here!


Formats:
application/pdf
text/html
Access Rights:
Free access
License:
This material is released under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 license.
Rights Holder:
American Physical Society
DOI:
10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.15.010102
Record Creator:
Metadata instance created March 28, 2019 by Bruce Mason
Record Updated:
May 9, 2022 by Caroline Hall
Last Update
when Cataloged:
January 7, 2019
ComPADRE is beta testing Citation Styles!

Record Link
AIP Format
P. Eaton, K. Johnson, B. Frank, and S. Willoughby, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 15 (1), 010102 (2019), WWW Document, (https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.15.010102).
AJP/PRST-PER
P. Eaton, K. Johnson, B. Frank, and S. Willoughby, Classical test theory and item response theory comparison of the brief electricity and magnetism assessment and the conceptual survey of electricity and magnetism, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 15 (1), 010102 (2019), <https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.15.010102>.
APA Format
Eaton, P., Johnson, K., Frank, B., & Willoughby, S. (2019, January 7). Classical test theory and item response theory comparison of the brief electricity and magnetism assessment and the conceptual survey of electricity and magnetism. Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res., 15(1), 010102. Retrieved May 20, 2022, from https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.15.010102
Chicago Format
Eaton, P, K. Johnson, B. Frank, and S. Willoughby. "Classical test theory and item response theory comparison of the brief electricity and magnetism assessment and the conceptual survey of electricity and magnetism." Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 15, no. 1, (January 7, 2019): 010102, https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.15.010102 (accessed 20 May 2022).
MLA Format
Eaton, Philip, Keith Johnson, Barrett Frank, and Shannon Willoughby. "Classical test theory and item response theory comparison of the brief electricity and magnetism assessment and the conceptual survey of electricity and magnetism." Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 15.1 (2019): 010102. 20 May 2022 <https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.15.010102>.
BibTeX Export Format
@article{ Author = "Philip Eaton and Keith Johnson and Barrett Frank and Shannon Willoughby", Title = {Classical test theory and item response theory comparison of the brief electricity and magnetism assessment and the conceptual survey of electricity and magnetism}, Journal = {Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res.}, Volume = {15}, Number = {1}, Pages = {010102}, Month = {January}, Year = {2019} }
Refer Export Format

%A Philip Eaton %A Keith Johnson %A Barrett Frank %A Shannon Willoughby %T Classical test theory and item response theory comparison of the brief electricity and magnetism assessment and the conceptual survey of electricity and magnetism %J Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. %V 15 %N 1 %D January 7, 2019 %P 010102 %U https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.15.010102 %O application/pdf

EndNote Export Format

%0 Journal Article %A Eaton, Philip %A Johnson, Keith %A Frank, Barrett %A Willoughby, Shannon %D January 7, 2019 %T Classical test theory and item response theory comparison of the brief electricity and magnetism assessment and the conceptual survey of electricity and magnetism %J Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. %V 15 %N 1 %P 010102 %8 January 7, 2019 %U https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.15.010102


Disclaimer: ComPADRE offers citation styles as a guide only. We cannot offer interpretations about citations as this is an automated procedure. Please refer to the style manuals in the Citation Source Information area for clarifications.

Citation Source Information

The AIP Style presented is based on information from the AIP Style Manual.

The AJP/PRST-PER presented is based on the AIP Style with the addition of journal article titles and conference proceeding article titles.

The APA Style presented is based on information from APA Style.org: Electronic References.

The Chicago Style presented is based on information from Examples of Chicago-Style Documentation.

The MLA Style presented is based on information from the MLA FAQ.

Save to my folders

Contribute

Similar Materials